JUDGMENT :

Kalyan Rai Surana, J.

1. Heard Mr. I. Chowdhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. N.J. Khataniar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.N. Goswami, learned standing counsel for the respondents.

2. The challenge in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the order dated 20.09.2016, passed by the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Excise Department (respondent no. 2). By the said order, it was held that the enquiry report submitted by the State Enquiry Officer, Assam was not satisfactory and it was communicated that the Governor of Assam considers that an enquiry officer should be appointed to enquire into the charges framed against the petitioner and accordingly, a different enquiry officer as well as Presenting Officer were appointed respectively.

3. In brief, the case of the petitioner as projected in the writ petition is that at the relevant time, he was posted as Deputy Superintendent of Excise, Cachar, he was allowed to hold charge of Superintendent of Excise, temporarily vide order dated 22.4.2014 and 26.5.2014, till posting of a regular incumbent. On 19.7.2014, the Treasury Officer, Cachar reported that huge amount of government revenue was not deposited into public exchequer by the concerned depositors under the jurisdiction of the petitioner though challans were duly passed by his office, which caused loss of Rs. 36,36,75,275/- to the revenue. On enquiry and reconciliation, the petitioner found that two IMFL licencees had defalcated excise revenue of Rs. 16,63,65,818/-. On 1.8.2014, the petitioner issued notice on the said two defaulting excise licence holders to appear before him with stock and sales register and supporting documents of deposit of ad valorem levy on or before 03.08.2014. On default, the petitioner lodged an F.I.R. before the O/c. Silchar Sadar P.S. against the licencees found to be involved in defalcating government revenue, which was registered as Silchar P.S. Case No. 1951/2014 under sections 409/420 of the I.P.C.

4. In course of time, the Addl. Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Excise Department vide notification no. EX. 134/2014/43 dated 22.10.2014, pending departmental proceeding, the petitioner was placed under suspension under Rule 6(1) of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the "1964 Rules" for brevity) on the allegation that while posted as In-Charge Superintendent of Excise, Cachar, he had failed to detect defalcation of ad valorem duties by 2 (two) "OFF" Licencees, resulting in loss to the government exchequer. Thereafter vide Memo no. Ex. 134/2014/47 dated 16.12.2014, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner under Rule 9 of the said 1964 Rules read with Article 311 of the Constitution of India, as to why any of the penalties prescribed under Rule 7 of the said Rules should not be inflicted on him. The said memo contained a statement of allegation and was accompanied by list of documents and list of witnesses. The petitioner submitted his show cause reply dated 22.12.2014. Thereafter, vide notification No. EX. 236/2014/74 dated 23.02.2015 issued by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Excise Department, the notification of suspension dated 22.10.2014 was revoked and the petitioner was reinstated in service. Thereafter, vide notification no. Ex. 236/2014/75 dated 13.03.2015 issued by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Excise Department, the State Enquiry Officer was appointed as the Enquiring Authority to enquire into the charges framed against the petitioner and to submit enquiry report and by the same notification, a Presenting Officer was also appointed to present the case before the Enquiry Officer. On 8.4.2016, the petitioner had submitted his written submission before the Enquiry Officer. After conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer had submitted his report. As per the said report, the reconciliation had not been the regular